Sapendra Singh vs Ovendra Singh And Others

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by Specified Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Division Ater, District Bhind (M.P.) in Case No.01/22-23/v-89 whereby the election petition filed by respondent No.1 had been allowed and directions for recounting of the votes had been issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that the order impugned herein is not in consonance with the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8691 of 2023 whereby the objections which were earlier raised by the petitioner with regard to very maintainability of the election petition preferred by the respondent No.1 were rejected and the said order was under challenge wherein this Court while allowing the petition and setting aside the order impugned herein had relegated the matter back to the Specified Officer/S.D.O. to decide the application preferred by the petitioner with regard to maintainability on its own merits.

It is further submitted that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 21.06.2023, it is reflected that in the entire body, there is no discussion with regard to any decision on the application which was filed by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the very election petition and has been directed by this Court to decide the same. In a very cursory manner, the Specified Officer/SDO had allowed the election petition without giving any finding regarding maintainability of the Election Petition and had directed for recounting. Since no decision on the application of the petitioner, with regard to maintainability of the very election petition which was directed by the Court in earlier round of litigation has been given which goes to the very root of the matter, the impugned order is per se illegal and it deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, Shri D.P. Singh appearing for respondent No.1 submits that vide order dated 24.04.2023, the application under Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995 was already decided and there was no occasion for the Election Officer to have further elaborated or mentioned this fact in the main order.

It was further submitted that so far as other application under Section 151 of CPC is concerned, the Specified Officer/SDO after taking note of this fact had decided the matter finally and had directed for recounting of the votes which cannot be faulted with. On the strength of above argument, it was submitted that no illegality has been committed while passing the impugned order herein and therefore, the petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed.

Shri G.K. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State supports the impugned order.

Controverting the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.1, Shri Dwivedi submits that the application under Rule 8 of the Rules 1995 was decided on 24.04.2023 though the order in W.P. No.8691 of 2023 was passed on 19.04.2023 but it could only be communicated to the Specified Officer/SDO on 27.04.2023, thereafter, after receiving of the said order, the Specified Officer had framed the issues vide order dated 04.05.2023 and a specific issue was also framed on the objections which were taken by the petitioner but there is no finding on the said issue, therefore, the Specified Officer/SDO has not complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.8691 of 2023. On the strength of the aforesaid, it was submitted that the impugned order being per se illegal deserves to be set aside.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is an admitted fact that this is a second round of litigation between the parties. Earlier against the rejection of application under Section 151 of CPC and Rule 8 of the Rules 1993, Writ Petition No.8691 of 2023 was preferred by the petitioner and vide order dated 19.04.2023, the said petition was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Specified Officer/S.D.O. to decide the applications of the petitioner afresh.

From the proceedings of the Election Tribunal dated 04.05.2023, it is reflected that the issues were framed by the S.D.O. and one of the issues was with regard to objections which were taken by the petitioner but from the body of the impugned order, it doesn't appear that any of the issues which were framed were not even discussed nor the issues which were specifically framed on the objections raised by the petitioner was decided.

Thus, this Court finds that the directions issued to the Specified Officer/SDO earlier vide order dated 19.04.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8691 of 2023 has not been complied with and in a very cursory manner, learned Specified Officer/SDO had passed the impugned order which is per se illegal. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Specified Officer/SDO to decide the issues framed by him on 04.05.2023 after giving opportunity of hearing of by giving opportunity to the parties for leading their evidence if required further and take appropriate decision in the matter keeping in view with the earlier order dated 19.04.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8691 of 2023.

Since it is an election petition, it is expedient from the Specified Officer/SDO to decide the same as expeditiously as possible without giving any undue adjournment to the parties.

The parties are hereby directed to appear before the concerned Specified Officer/SDO on 11.07.2023.